Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label Self-efficacy

Academic Self-Efficacy Scale ASE

  Overview The  Academic Self-Efficacy Scale is an application of Self-Efficacy Theory   to examine the relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance using 8-items rated on a 7-point scale. The work of Chemers et al. (2001) has been widely cited. Format The 8-items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Very Untrue to 7 = Very True. Sample Items 2. I know how to take notes. 6. I usually do very well in school and at academic tasks.   Reliability, Validity, and Other Research notes In the article describing the development and use of the ASE, the authors observed: “As predicted, academic self-efficacy was significantly and directly related to academic expectations and academic performance.” (Chemers et al., 2001, p. 61)   Sutton et al. (2011) reported Cronbach's alpha of .83 in their study of academic self-esteem and personal strengths. ASE was highly positively correlated with ACT scores (.24) and GPA (.39). An Arabic version of t

New General Self-Efficacy Scale

  Bing Images/free to share and use General Self-Efficacy refers to a trait in contrast to more specific dimensions of self-efficacy. The New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES) was developed by Chen et al. (2001). The scale consists of 8-items. The assessment of Self-Efficacy may be relevant in psychotherapy, career planning, and organizational psychology. Read more about Self-Efficacy Theory .   Instructions Using a 5-point rating scale (1= strongly disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 5 = strongly agree), respondents show how much they agree with eight statements, such as “Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.” Researchers then calculate a score for each respondent by taking the average of their ratings. Sample items I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I set for myself. When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them. Reliability The authors reported alpha = .86 and .90 (two times) in study 2 (See C